Forced abortions and sterilizations

[Mike_Yates]

Do you think we should have forced abortions and sterilizations of the weak and unfortunate in the United States?

They have them in China.

This might ultimately help solve hunger and poverty.

 

[doctor_insanus]

You'd make a damn fine GOP congressman, Mike.

 

[oggbashan]

Do you think we should have forced abortions and sterilizations of the weak and unfortunate in the United States?

They have them in China.

This might ultimately help solve hunger and poverty.

In the UK a court recently decided that a mentally handicapped man should have a vasectomy because he was in a long term relationship with a mentally handicapped woman. They have had a child but were unable to look after it themselves. They have been kept apart to avoid her conceiving again but that has been distressing for both of them.

Once he is sterilised, they can live together again in a supported environment, which is what they want.

But as far as I know this is the first and only case in the UK of a 'forced' sterilisation, but only 'forced' because he does not have the mental capacity to decide for himself.

 

[Mike_Yates]

The United States was the first country to concertedly undertake compulsory sterilization programs for the purpose of eugenics. The heads of the program were avid believers in eugenics and frequently argued for their program. It was shut down due to ethical problems. The principal targets of the American program were the mentally retarded and the mentally ill, but also targeted under many state laws were the deaf, the blind, people with epilepsy, and the physically deformed. According to the activist Angela Davis, Native Americans, as well as African-American women were sterilized against their will in many states, often without their knowledge while they were in a hospital for other reasons (e.g. childbirth). Other Native American activists such as Dr. Pinkerman concluded some 25,000 Native American women were forcibly sterilized against their will, although others have claimed these numbers were exaggerated.

Some sterilizations took place in prisons and other penal institutions, targeting criminality, but they were in the relative minority. In the end, over 65,000 individuals were sterilized in 33 states under state compulsory sterilization programs in the United States.

The first state to introduce a compulsory sterilization bill was Michigan, in 1897, but the proposed law failed to garner enough votes by legislators to be adopted. Eight years later Pennsylvania's state legislators passed a sterilization bill that was vetoed by the governor. Indiana became the first state to enact sterilization legislation in 1907, followed closely by California and Washington in 1909. Sterilization rates across the country were relatively low (California being the sole exception) until the 1927 Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell which legitimized the forced sterilization of patients at a Virginia home for the mentally retarded. The number of sterilizations performed per year increased until another Supreme Court case, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 1942, complicated the legal situation by ruling against sterilization of criminals if the equal protection clause of the constitution was violated. That is, if sterilization was to be performed, then it could not exempt white-collar criminals.

Most sterilization laws could be divided into three main categories of motivations: eugenic (concerned with heredity), therapeutic (part of an even-then obscure medical theory that sterilization would lead to vitality), or punitive (as a punishment for criminals), though of course these motivations could be combined in practice and theory (sterilization of criminals could be both punitive and eugenic, for example). Buck v. Bell asserted only that eugenic sterilization was constitutional, whereas Skinner v. Oklahoma ruled specifically against punitive sterilization. Most operations only worked to prevent reproduction (such as severing the vas deferens in males), though some states (Oregon and North Dakota in particular) had laws which called for the use of castration. In general, most sterilizations were performed under eugenic statutes, in state-run psychiatric hospitals and homes for the mentally disabled. There was never a federal sterilization statute, though eugenicist Harry H. Laughlin, whose state-level "Model Eugenical Sterilization Law" was the basis of the statute affirmed in Buck v. Bell, proposed the structure of one in 1922.

After World War II, public opinion towards eugenics and sterilization programs became more negative in the light of the connection with the genocidal policies of Nazi Germany, though a significant number of sterilizations continued in a few states until the late 1960s. The Oregon Board of Eugenics, later renamed the Board of Social Protection, existed until 1983, with the last forcible sterilization occurring in 1981. The U.S. commonwealth Puerto Rico had a sterilization program as well. Some states continued to have sterilization laws on the books for much longer after that, though they were rarely if ever used. California sterilized more than any other state by a wide margin, and was responsible for over a third of all sterilization operations. Information about the California sterilization program was produced into book form and widely disseminated by eugenicists E.S. Gosney and Paul B. Popenoe, which was said by the government of Adolf Hitler to be of key importance in proving that large-scale compulsory sterilization programs were feasible. In recent years, the governors of many states have made public apologies for their past programs beginning with Virginia and followed by Oregon and California. None have offered to compensate those sterilized, however, citing that few are likely still living (and would of course have no affected offspring) and that inadequate records remain by which to verify them. At least one compensation case, Poe v. Lynchburg Training School & Hospital (1981), was filed in the courts on the grounds that the sterilization law was unconstitutional. It was rejected because the law was no longer in effect at the time of the filing. However, the petitioners were granted some compensation as the stipulations of the law itself, which required informing the patients about their operations, had not been carried out in many cases.

The 27 states where sterilization laws remained on the books (though not all were still in use) in 1956 were: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin.

As of January 2011, discussions are underway regarding compensation for the victims of forced sterilization under the authorization of the Eugenics Board of North Carolina. Governor Bev Perdue formed the NC Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation in 2010 in order "to provide justice and compensate victims who were forcibly sterilized by the State of North Carolina". As of April 13, 2012, victims of forced sterilization in North Carolina have yet to be compensated. Governor Bev Perdue recommended providing each living victim with $50,000. However, Gov. Perdue and others are awaiting approval for the compensation and are working towards writing a bill. Discussions have yet to begin regarding compensation for victims of forced sterilization in other states. Other countries have yet to compensate victims of forced sterilization.

 

[aye_H8_ewe]

In the UK a court recently decided that a mentally handicapped man should have a vasectomy because he was in a long term relationship with a mentally handicapped woman. They have had a child but were unable to look after it themselves. They have been kept apart to avoid her conceiving again but that has been distressing for both of them.

Once he is sterilised, they can live together again in a supported environment, which is what they want.

But as far as I know this is the first and only case in the UK of a 'forced' sterilisation, but only 'forced' because he does not have the mental capacity to decide for himself.

Retards get more sex than normal people these days.

 

[subdued_passion]

No one likes to talk about the Eugenics program... I wonder why? I mean progressive, educated people pooling their resources to create a new and improved breed of humans.

I guess then they'd have to give Hitler the credit for kick-starting the whole maintaining the purity of the species spiel.

 

[Mike_Yates]

No one likes to talk about the Eugenics program... I wonder why? I mean progressive, educated people pooling their resources to create a new and improved breed of humans.

I guess then they'd have to give Hitler the credit for kick-starting the whole maintaining the purity of the species spiel.

Do we really want to have an entire society filled with cripples and misfits?

 

[EducatedOwl]

I am uncomfortable giving a government the authority to decide who is allowed to reproduce. What's to stop them from deciding to sterilize me or you?

 

[Mike_Yates]

I am uncomfortable giving a government the authority to decide who is allowed to reproduce. What's to stop them from deciding to sterilize me or you?

That would be fine by me. I do not ever plan on having children and passing on my poor genetic makeup to another person.

 

[Mike_Yates]

I am uncomfortable giving a government the authority to decide who is allowed to reproduce. What's to stop them from deciding to sterilize me or you?

That would be fine by me. In fact, I would probably do so voluntarily. I do not ever plan on having children and passing on my poor genetic makeup to another person.

It's a proven fact that those who are weak, feeble-minded, uneducated, crippled, diseased, poor, and inherently unfit reproduce themselves many times more so than their counterparts.

Something MUST be done to mitigate this.

 

[EducatedOwl]

That would be fine by me. In fact, I would probably do so voluntarily. I do not ever plan on having children and passing on my poor genetic makeup to another person.

That's beside the point. What about people who want to have children?

 

[neci]

there are people i've wanted to "fix" before, but i am not willing to give up my own right to be "fixed."

 

[Mike_Yates]

That's beside the point. What about people who want to have children?

Well, if they are passing on their faulty genetics, polluting the gene pool, and being counter-productive to the advancement of society/civilization, then I say that they should stopped from doing so.

 

[EducatedOwl]

Well, if they are passing on their faulty genetics and being counter-productive to the advancement of society/civilization, then I say that they should stopped from doing so.

Who decides whose genetics are faulty and who is counterproductive?

 

[Mike_Yates]

Who decides whose genetics are faulty and who is counterproductive?

Through intelligence testing, extensive psychological evaluations, family heredity, blood testing and screening for genetic disorders, academic achievement, occupational achievement, and various other means.

Only the most pedigreed individuals should be allowed to reproduce.

 

[EducatedOwl]

Through intelligence testing, extensive psychological evaluations, family heredity, blood testing and screening for genetic disorders, academic achievement, occupational achievement, and various other means.

Only the most pedigreed individuals should be allowed to reproduce.

Who decides what counts as pedigreed? Who designs the tests? Who makes the standards for academic achievement?

What I'm getting at here is this: what you're talking about is giving a government the authority over life itself, and then trusting that government to do the right thing with it.

 

[Mike_Yates]

Who decides what counts as pedigreed? Who designs the tests? Who makes the standards for academic achievement?

What I'm getting at here is this: what you're talking about is giving a government the authority over life itself, and then trusting that government to do the right thing with it.

The world still needs plumbers, electricians, loggers, construction workers, highway flagmen, truck drivers, security guards, military infantry, retail store employees, etc...

So I guess state-mandated restrictions on human reproduction should be more liberal, with only the very bottom of the barrel being targeted for eugenics and involuntary sterilization. Just enough to keep the numbers of the underclasses in check.

The extremely wealthy and those with advanced educations and a very high income should be exempt.

 

[subdued_passion]

There are two reasons working against the whole forced abortions and sterilizations:

1. The ethical dilemma this poses... I'm not even going to get started.

2. The threat to biodiversity. Social Darwinism, which is basically what you are suggesting, will lead to a limited genepool... This in turn will decrease our ability as a species to adapt to a change in the environment.

 

[subdued_passion]

The world still needs plumbers, electricians, loggers, construction workers, highway flagmen, truck drivers, security guards, military infantry, retail store employees, etc...

I'm glad you recognise the need of this in your Republic.

So I guess state-mandated restrictions on human reproduction should be more liberal, with only the very bottom of the barrel being targeted for eugenics and involuntary sterilization. Just enough to keep the numbers of the underclasses in check.

On what basis do you cast people in these different class buckets?

The extremely wealthy and those with advanced educations and a very high income should be exempt.

Why?

 

[EducatedOwl]

The world still needs plumbers, electricians, loggers, construction workers, highway flagmen, truck drivers, security guards, military infantry, retail store employees, etc...

So I guess state-mandated restrictions on human reproduction should be more liberal, with only the very bottom of the barrel being targeted for eugenics and involuntary sterilization. Just enough to keep the numbers of the underclasses in check.

The extremely wealthy and those with advanced educations and a very high income should be exempt.

Can we make exceptions?

 

[Mike_Yates]

There are two reasons working against the whole forced abortions and sterilizations:

1. The ethical dilemma this poses... I'm not even going to get started.

2. The threat to biodiversity. Social Darwinism, which is basically what you are suggesting, will lead to a limited genepool... This in turn will decrease our ability as a species to adapt to a change in the environment.

You are correct with your second statement, the underclasses should be kept on a very short leash with their numbers and privileges very limited. The products from the lower and middle class workforce should be most beneficial to the rich.

Everyone should work their fingers to the bone for the bare basic living essentials for the fodder of the rich.

You need to read Social Theory by Herbert Spencer.

 

[phrodeau]

Through intelligence testing, extensive psychological evaluations, family heredity, blood testing and screening for genetic disorders, academic achievement, occupational achievement, and various other means.

Only the most pedigreed individuals should be allowed to reproduce.

You claim that you would never reproduce and return inferior genes to the gene pool.

Yet here you are, pouring your inferior ideas on the internet. That sort of infection can lead to more posters like amicus, eyer, jeninflorida and busybody.

Are you in favor of testing and evaluations for internet posting privileges?

 

[oggbashan]

...

Are you in favor of testing and evaluations for internet posting privileges?

Perhaps the UK government's insistence that all students should achieve a grade A-C at GCSE Maths and English?

Unfortunately that requirement is so low that almost all GB posters would reach it.

 

[subdued_passion]

You are correct with your second statement, the underclasses should be kept on a very short leash with their numbers and privileges very limited. The products from the lower and middle class workforce should be most beneficial to the rich.

Everyone should work their fingers to the bone for the bare basic living essentials for the fodder of the rich.

You need to read Social Theory by Herbert Spencer.

You really didn't get my point at all did you?

You claim that you would never reproduce and return inferior genes to the gene pool.

Yet here you are, pouring your inferior ideas on the internet. That sort of infection can lead to more posters like amicus, eyer, jeninflorida and busybody.

You should be tested and evaluated for internet posting privileges

FYP

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

force obortions i don't agree wit.